I have purchased my last CD

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by smorgdonkey

The music business killed itself...how?

Here is my take:
-1. By cutting loose the small to medium artists that weren't going to get that 'million+' seller and concentrating solely on the biggest selling acts.

-2. By supporting the IDOL crowd rather than seeking out the true artists that exist.

-3. By pushing the style over substance mentality and getting formulaic songwriters for their 'face artists'.


The bottom line is that the 'business' became more important than the 'music' to the people who had the power to make a difference.

Of course it's about the businesss. It always has been.

There's NOTHING to keep people (like you or me) from picking up some of these "small to medium artists" and trying to make some money at it. Other than the fact we'd probably lose money doing it.

[dthumb]

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

I really, really, really do NOT believe that is true.

If you can find support for your position, I'd be glad to see it.

it comes down to "intent" and some semantics...

"if":

1) the original music is legally obtained it may be recorded for "personal" use i.e. change of format ( vinyl to tape/disk, etc.)
2) that the purpose is not to avoid paying but to
"promote and educate" the work of the original artist
3) that no more than three copies excluding the original are made for "educational purposes"
4) that there is no financial benefit to the original purchaser.(including trading, sharing, exchanging)
5)or that the recording is being made to replace a damaged or destroyed originally, legally purchased one (archiving)
6)and that this is not a "common practice" for the original purchaser ( this one addresses distribution in a vague way)

what the riaa says and wants and what the laws actually allow and how they "apply" differ in many ways. unfortunately, it is the riaa lobby that may control what the laws become and how they are applied in the future.
no one in the music industry saw the onslaught of the downloadable, digital era coming nor did they anticipate the effect it would have on their products and as such, they have raced to meet the impending demise of their industry with a degree of over zealousness and greed...20/20 hindsight.
technology will not allow total control of any media. that is a reality. it is time the industry stops fighting the gorilla in the trunk and uses its power or as a friend once said, "learn to be smarter than the tools you're using".

oh, i forgot to mention....this info/insight came from an attorney friend who is involved in a copyright infringement suit....

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by dthumb

it comes down to "intent" and some semantics...

"if":

1) the original music is legally obtained it may be recorded for "personal" use i.e. change of format ( vinyl to tape/disk, etc.)
2) that the purpose is not to avoid paying but to
"promote and educate" the work of the original artist
3) that no more than three copies excluding the original are made for "educational purposes"
4) that there is no financial benefit to the original purchaser.(including trading, sharing, exchanging)
5)or that the recording is being made to replace a damaged or destroyed originally, legally purchased one (archiving)
6)and that this is not a "common practice" for the original purchaser ( this one addresses distribution in a vague way)

The way I see it, this argument fails at #1.

I fail to see how giving a copy the item to somebody else could be considered "personal use".


Ideally, you could send an mp3 of a song to an individual where said mp3 would "self destruct" after it had been played, and it couldn't be digitally recorded again, either (at least not easily). That would allow people to "share" a song over the internet . . . much like you can share it with a friend by playing it for them at your house or in your car.

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by dthumb

4) that there is no financial benefit to the original purchaser.(including trading, sharing, exchanging)

This one seems a bit tough to prove, too. I imagine that most people who share an mp3 copy with a friend are very, very likely to also be receiving mp3's from said friend, as well. Which would mean that they ARE "trading, sharing, exchanging".

Remember, this is a civil action, not criminal. So it's "preponderance of the evidence". I don't think it'd be too hard to convince a jury that Person A sending an mp3 to Person B is probably expecting Person B to reciprocate with his own mp3's.

[dthumb]

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

The way I see it, this argument fails at #1.

I fail to see how giving a copy the item to somebody else could be considered "personal use".


Ideally, you could send an mp3 of a song to an individual where said mp3 would "self destruct" after it had been played, and it couldn't be digitally recorded again, either (at least not easily). That would allow people to "share" a song over the internet . . . much like you can share it with a friend by playing it for them at your house or in your car.

#1 is the actual law without any "if ands or buts" and is uncontested even by the riaa. it is also the premise under which any of the other circumstances must follow. the music must have been legally purchased originally for any of the other circumstances to be considered.
why would one buy a thing that "self destructs"? might as well listen to it for free ....
what is conceivable and exists is encryption that allows only limited reproduction but, technology also exists to read that encryption and override it.
why not simply go into the internet sales whole hog and exploit the unlimited nature of its resources?
for an example...the new radiohead cd...they released it at "whatever one wished to pay" for a limited time ( i'd heard the average was around $5.00) for download. i previewed it and waited until it came out in the stores where i purchased it for $12. now, if i copied it and gave it to a friend, three friends, actually that still makes each copy sold a $3.00 cd , just less than the average but, not much. so, if, as a result, one of those people decide they loved it and want a different cd by radiohead i have helped expand their listenership and market.(not that i plan to do that...copy it, that is)
on the other hand, if they could make it possible to not be able to make copies of copies that would limit much piracy without depriving listeners of the joy in sharing music they love with their friends...a happy medium, perhaps?

[dthumb]

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

Remember, this is a civil action, not criminal. So it's "preponderance of the evidence". I don't think it'd be too hard to convince a jury that Person A sending an mp3 to Person B is probably expecting Person B to reciprocate with his own mp3's.

i think that would entail a great deal of "speculation" and, as such, would not be allowed..even in a civil suit...to be presented without some "proof".

[Smoking Barrel]

This sounds like a complete absurd, considering the success of iTunes and its ONLINE music sales. iTunes is advertised as an easy solution to transfer your CDs to your computer!

Personally I think that the whole "concern" will just due in the future...

It reminds me of the law suite against Ozzy Osbourne when some kid shot him self when listening to Ozzy records. - Remember that one??

[beach bob]

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

Of course it's about the businesss. It always has been.

There's NOTHING to keep people (like you or me) from picking up some of these "small to medium artists" and trying to make some money at it. Other than the fact we'd probably lose money doing it.

Well, thanks friend, but I already have a career. It's not really my job to record and market the music that I want made available to me. Though I do in fact do the research on my own, by going to music festivals and finding new artists that way. Rare is the occasion anymore that I hear an artist I like, just by hearing a tune on the radio.

This is really a whole other issue, but consider this article, which (while long) neatly lays out the business advantages of a large catalog, and by extension of that, keeping minor artists under contract to expand such a catalog. Consider the following quote from the article:

What's really amazing about the Long Tail is the sheer size of it. Combine enough nonhits on the Long Tail and you've got a market bigger than the hits. Take books: The average Barnes & Noble carries 130,000 titles. Yet more than half of Amazon's book sales come from outside its top 130,000 titles. Consider the implication: If the Amazon statistics are any guide, the market for books that are not even sold in the average bookstore is larger than the market for those that are (see "Anatomy of the Long Tail"). In other words, the potential book market may be twice as big as it appears to be, if only we can get over the economics of scarcity. Venture capitalist and former music industry consultant Kevin Laws puts it this way: "The biggest money is in the smallest sales." [the bold is my emphasis]

NetFlix and Rhapsody are given as two examples of how to make a huge title catalog more easily available to a consumer in, say, Yellowknife, Canada find the title they are after.

I side with Smorg here; among other idiotic, short sighted moves, the record companies thought that high teevee ratings for American Idol would translate into huge sales for a select number of semi-talented artists. Watching the current state of the recording industry is just like observing US auto companies of the late 70s thru the 80s... they figured one or two good years would bail em out. Let's not quibble with such minutae as quality of product, eh? I'll bet Ahmet Ertugun is spinning in his grave... actually I bet he grit his teeth pretty hard in observance of the state of the music industry during the last few years he was still alive.

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by dthumb

#1 is the actual law without any "if ands or buts" and is uncontested even by the riaa.

So you're saying that the RIAA agrees that giving a friend a copy of your CD constitutes "personal use"?

I find that difficult to believe.

I think everybody would agree that #1 is "the law", but the argument would be exactly what IS "personal use". And I can't see how giving a copy to a friend would fall under that category.

But I'll admit it's possible . . I just remain very skeptical until I see something that shows otherwise.

[SongwriterFan]

[QUOTE=dthumb;1348005why would one buy a thing that "self destructs"? might as well listen to it for free ....
[/QUOTE]

I'm not suggesting that one BUY something that would self-destruct. I'm suggesting that it would be nice to create a COPY of something you buy (for the sole purpose of sending to a friend so he can listen . . ONCE) that would self-destruct. This would prevent it from being further distributed.

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by beach bob

Well, thanks friend, but I already have a career. It's not really my job to record and market the music that I want made available to me.

I have a career, too . . but if I thought I could make some "big bucks" by picking up those artists that record labels left behind, I'd do it.

The thing is, I'm pretty sure there's a REASON that the labels drop those acts . . . because they aren't making enough money!

Fortunately, it's easier than ever these days for unknown artists to record and market their own CD's given today's technology! Unfortunately, you've basically got to LOVE to do it and not worry about being eternally broke (with just a small chance of making it big).

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by dthumb

i think that would entail a great deal of "speculation" and, as such, would not be allowed..even in a civil suit...to be presented without some "proof".

I'm no lawyer, but I disagree.

I think a jury would find it quite reasonable to assume that Friend A who's sharing music with Friend B is probably getting some shared music back from Friend B.

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by beach bob

In other words, the potential book market may be twice as big as it appears to be, if only we can get over the economics of scarcity.

But therein lies the problem. You can't get ignore economics. Authors will want to be PAID (in some fashion) by those who read their books.

And whoever puts up the time/capital to promote the books and make them readily available will want to be paid for HIS efforts, as well.

Few want to work for free!

This is all a bit confusing with all the legalese and so forth, but it seems then that if 1,000 people all put up one cent to buy a $10 music cd, they, all being owners, could then share the cd witihout consequence, whereas, if only one of the individuals had bought it, then they could not share with the others?!?!

Group purchasing, the wave of the future!

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by hmrhd

This is all a bit confusing with all the legalese and so forth, but it seems then that if 1,000 people all put up one cent to buy a $10 music cd, they, all being owners, could then share the cd witihout consequence, whereas, if only one of the individuals had bought it, then they could not share with the others?!?!

Nope . . . but each one would be entitled to 1/1000 of the song.

So for a typical 3-minute song, you'd get to listen to 0.18 seconds of it.